 |
 |
On 24/04/2012 15:35, Tom Fine wrote: > Hi Ted: > > But 35 millimeters = 1.37795276 inches. > > So either the reporter completely confused what he was seeing (or > hearing) or there was 35mm film in use. > > Are there any Abbey Road veterans from that time on the list? > > -- Tom Fine > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Kendall" > <[log in to unmask]> > To: <[log in to unmask]> > Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:12 AM > Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] EMI, opera and 35mm? > > >> On 24/04/2012 14:47, Tom Fine wrote: >>> So they don't mean sprocketed magnetic film? >>> >>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Kendall" >>> <[log in to unmask]> >>> To: <[log in to unmask]> >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 9:40 AM >>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] EMI, opera and 35mm? >>> >>> >>>> On 24/04/2012 13:27, Tom Fine wrote: >>>>> I came across this blurb in May 1968 High Fidelity: >>>>> http://www.yousendit.com/download/M3Brc2ZPK3g3bUJEZU1UQw?cid=tx-02002207340200000000&s=19102 >>>>> >>>>> (paste full link into browser if it's split by e-mail) >>>>> >>>>> The part from London, about Klemperer recording Wagner for EMI, >>>>> starts at the bottom of the first page. >>>>> >>>>> At the top of the second page, the piece reports that "35-mm tape >>>>> (is used) when separate systems were being used for voices and >>>>> instruments." >>>>> >>>>> Are there any EMI veterans on this list who can tell me more about >>>>> this technique? How long was it used? Aside from the Klemperer >>>>> Wagner opera recording, what other records were made using this >>>>> technique? Was it ever detailed or used as a marketing hook in EMI >>>>> advertising or album-notes? >>>>> >>>>> Finally, do any EMI veterans have photos of the setup, showing the >>>>> 35mm equipment? >>>>> >>>>> -- Tom Fine >>>> I'm pretty certain this would be one inch tape on Studer J37s, of >>>> which Abbey Road had several at the time, although there was a >>>> similar Telefunken machine as well. Four tracks gave one pair for >>>> voices and one for orchestra. >>>> >>> >> Not as far as I know - I have not come across any other suggestion >> that this was used there, and the technical climate was quite >> conservative at the time. >> > Agreed, but equally the man refers to tape rather than film, and "35mm" could easily be a typo or mistranscription of "25mm", which of course is one inch. I should imagine that he would not mistake a tape machine for a film transport. On the other hand, would the difference between 25 and 35mm be obvious when seen across a room?